The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
<<<Jimbo wrote:
I do not agree with this reasoning. If it were legally possible (and
it is not) I would like to see the possibility for board members
to get at least a small paycheck (10,000 euros per year or similar).
I think that board diversity is an important goal. And the practical
reality is that serving on the board of the foundation takes up quite
a bit of time and energy for all of us, and that is not likely to
change. Reimbursement of board expenses is quite important to
ensuring that people are able to serve without their service being a
financial burden.
I don't believe that it is wise to attempt to remunerate board members
through liberalization of travel policy. There are a number of problems
with this even if you accept that some means of remunerating board
members is necessary. The largest problem with doing so is fairness and
parity: Some board members will gain more than others. Those who travel
more, those who are more willing to push the edges of policy, and those
whose situation permits them to claim the greatest expenses will benefit
the most. I also believe that such policy works at cross purposes with
the board's mandate to control costs. How can someone control costs and
yet seek to remunerate themselves through the travel policy at the same
time?
I'm sure that Jimbo would characterize his comments above as more
appreciative and wishful than a specific policy proposal. Reimbursing
travel expenses is for removed from remuneration. Travelling more does
not equate to greater benefits. If the reimbursements are bigger, it's
because the expenses are bigger. There is still no compensation for the
hours that must be wasted hanging around airports waiting for flights,
or the time away from family. While there may sometimes be a small gain
from accepting a per diem for meals instead of accumulating piles of
receipts, you only need to look at the price of restaurant meals to
understand that it's not much of a gain.
If you believe that board members should receive a
stipend, we would be
better off finding a better and more transparent way to achieve that.
Even if they are on the board we can remunerate them for services
provided in some other capacity.
Sponsors could pay them under the table, and it wouldn't appear in the
books. ;-)
Paying them for other services would invite a whole new set of problems.
On the other hand, I believe that the foundation would
be better served
by drawing its board from individuals who have already achieved
sufficient financial independence that they need not look to the
foundation as a source of financial support.
Having only people who have achieved financial independence would have a
profound effect. I guess it would eliminate radical students from the
Board. ;-)
Ec